Superconferences - Page 2 - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

some coaches can do it - all that has been said is it got harder, and is bad for the game, the evidence is in the results - and I can act however I want & it is somewhat unlikely that hundreds of coaches, most of whom do not read the boards, similtaneously acted irrationally, and more likely that one event - the change - caused the result

also, make up your mind - you seem to similtaneously be agreeing a problem exists - caused by the mob mentality & yet there is none, because of all these examples you bring up.

KISS - keep it simple stupid - a change was made to make the game's top recruits more dominant, the games top coaches are getting them, and are winning more - it is not brain surgery

7/17/2011 2:01 PM

kmasonbx

Posts: 847 (0)

Hall of Famer

210

Prospect

OR I don't get where this comes from that the top coaches are winning more. I think it's safe to say we all agree that you are THE top coach and if not easily in the top 3 in the history of HD but at least in Tark you are winning less than you ever have. The vast majority of championships in D1 have always come from BCS conferences at least after those first 15 or so seasons where BCS conferences are still filling up. So just because BCS schools are winning the titles now doesn't mean it's any different than how it was. I think what's different is the perception so there are less coaches in the lower conferences so there are less coaches to compete with the BCS schools. I have no doubt in my mind the Conference USA experiment will be succesful and they will be better than at least 1 of the BCS conferences after a few seasons.

If the lower conferences were as populated as they used to be the mid majors would have the same success as they always did, every now and then a conference would turn into a 7th BCS conference but for the most part you will just have a dozen or so non BCS schools that are pretty good but not really a threat to win the title. You're acting like before the recruit generation changed non BCS schools were constantly contenders, and that just isn't the case.

I also don't know where you get this that my mind isn't made up, I have always been on the side that the recruits are perfectly fine. There was a brief time where I was starting to see your point but then I realized the BCS conferences are dominating because there aren't as many coaches in the lower conferneces not because they have an even bigger advantage than before.

After all I've said I do think there should be some change made simply to make all you guys happy and maybe make the lower levels more populated. Eventhough I think things are better now but if overall people liked it when on average the #98 recruit wasn't much worse than the #17 recruit then go back to that way to make things more populated. I'm still not saying you are right or that it's better for the actual point of the game but for the long term health it may be better. But in reality what's better for the long term health is to market the game better, because I think we can all agree it's a shame that WIS is marketed as poorly as it has been.

7/17/2011 2:35 PM

mullycj

Posts: 2737 (0)

Hall of Famer

214 1

Prospect

Top 25 rated teams in Smith. Count the number of non-major schools. Its been the same as Naismith for several seasons now.

	School	Players	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
1.	Maryland	12	96	73	54	94	51	58	71	70	74	51	76	70	B-	837
2.	Oregon St.	12	93	66	57	93	50	66	71	70	71	59	77	60	B-	833
3.	Louisiana St.	12	84	63	57	87	55	69	66	69	66	63	76	72	B-	828
4.	Alabama	12	90	67	58	92	46	72	74	66	66	57	78	55	B-	821
5.	Kentucky	12	89	66	58	87	50	62	66	69	73	50	74	61	C+	805
6.	UNC	12	89	65	59	90	50	52	60	63	66	56	76	73	C+	799
7.	Georgia	12	88	59	59	89	51	60	56	63	64	59	73	68	C+	789
8.	Auburn	12	81	63	46	83	40	49	73	64	71	67	80	70	B-	787
9.	Arizona St.	12	76	58	65	78	56	67	55	62	62	62	75	61	C	776
10.	Arkansas	12	85	59	60	85	51	60	54	57	63	63	73	64	C	774
11.	Connecticut	12	83	67	47	87	43	60	62	65	68	57	71	63	B-	774
12.	Vanderbilt	12	76	58	57	84	48	58	52	66	57	64	78	71	C+	770
13.	Stanford	12	77	60	63	84	51	69	60	62	61	49	74	55	C+	765
14.	UCLA	12	87	67	46	83	39	57	60	62	67	59	73	62	C	761
15.	Syracuse	12	80	61	51	86	44	48	66	67	66	54	75	61	C+	760
16.	Miami (FL)	12	87	62	54	85	46	60	51	63	63	55	72	60	C+	757
17.	Michigan St.	12	78	59	55	78	47	61	47	63	65	65	74	65	C+	756
18.	Texas	12	80	63	52	80	42	58	64	57	65	54	76	63	C	754
19.	Illinois	12	79	66	44	80	37	51	61	63	66	66	78	61	C+	752
20.	Kansas	12	81	61	52	84	47	65	49	56	65	58	78	54	B-	748
21.	Providence	12	75	62	54	79	42	59	57	63	61	63	75	59	C+	748
22.	S. Carolina	12	71	57	52	73	42	59	61	58	50	77	79	68	B-	746
23.	USC	12	74	50	61	76	49	60	53	55	55	70	76	66	B-	744
24.	Ohio St.	12	80	57	55	79	48	66	58	59	60	54	71	52	C	739
25.	St. Johns	12	76	60	46	79	32	53	55	58	56	76	76	63	B-	730

7/17/2011 2:47 PM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

there is no doubt you can win from the mids - the issue is you have less a chance in the mid's because you can no longer get your hands on the type of recruit required to win it all - this is not under debate, the entire purpose of the change was to LESSEN the number of top recruits. As far as the top teams winning more or not, isn't that the premise this thread is built on - that indeed they are (my last 2 conferences, world 2 big east got 8 teams into the sweet 16, world 9 texas;s conf got 9 into the dance, just to add to the list), I did not think that was even under discussion - you have difficulty keeping on one issue KM.

Again, to keep you on topic, either mass hysteria changed the game last june (your words not mine) or the change changed the game, I vote the change did it.

7/17/2011 2:53 PM

car_crazy_v2

Posts: 619 (0)

All Star

32 3

Rookie

In my estimation, the real problem lies in Progression and Early Entry logic.

#1) I am going to get some flack for saying this, but player progression needs to slow down slightly, and work ethic's impact should matter slightly less. There just aren't players who regress season after season and don't improve at all (Low WE players).

#2) Potential caps should be rid of. They are completely unrealistic and the way it is now, players are typically maxed out by their senior year. This means that as NBA players, they will not improve at all. That's wildly unrealistic and players should improve consistently from their freshman season to their senior season.

#3) Highly rated freshman and sophomores should leave more often and get drafted higher. The draft does matter due to its impact on prestige and NBA teams draft heavily based off of potential. If more underclassmen leave, top end teams will struggle to get high IQ teams and mid-major teams can stack their classes so that they can make George Mason or VCU-type runs when they have high IQ seniors.

These 3 changes need to be made soon to preserve the realism of HD.

7/17/2011 3:08 PM

cburton23

Posts: 496 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 289 3

Prospect

Point #2 is just plain silly.

7/17/2011 6:47 PM

kmasonbx1

Posts: 353 (0)

All Star

39

Prospect

OR, I'm not sure at what point I went off topic according to you. I've said it before, in general people are resistant to change unless it's incredibly obvious to most that it's needed. There is a reason why despite our health care system being absolutely terrible for a modern nation it seems like we will never get the reform that actually makes a good system. You may not want to believe that people don't like change but it's a fact. How many people do you know that go to a restaraunt and order the same thing every time? Drink the same beer? Stick with the same car manufacturer?

As soon as I get some extra money I'll take over a team from a weak non BCS conference and show you that it's not hard to do well in a weak conference with a team that has weak baseline prestige.

7/17/2011 7:07 PM

namshub

Posts: 280 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 3 308 2 37

Rookie

Posted by kmasonbx on 7/17/2011 1:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by oldresorter on 7/17/2011 11:44:00 AM (view original):
so km - what you are describing is a mass psychosis - where near all coaches are 'stuck in their ways', and you uniquely are able to see the light, vs the commonly held opinion that single change was made to the game thats pupose was to make top end recruits better vs the middle, resulting in better top end teams vs the middle ... think about that - mass psychosis vs top end players creating top end teams - I think the answer is really obvious.
I'm not the only one who doesn't think things are really that bad, I'm just one of the very few who are willing to descent and make it known I'm fine with things. Simply because I'm in the minority and I'm vocal about it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

The thought is you have to be a big conference to be competitive, the fact is that's not true. Look at BYU in Tark, North Texas was the same way before Volcano decided he wanted to be in a conference with more humans. I'm confident if I was in a weak conference with few humans I'd still field a very solid team. I know any number of good coaches would do the same, it's not really that difficult. You guys make it sound impossible, and I don't even think it's that hard.

You for some reason want the top recruits to be worse and the middle tier to be better thus making a large # of recruits pretty similar, essentially brining the game back to where it was when there were way too many great players. I personally think that's a terrible idea, the game is so much better having some truely elite players. Look at how Tark was this season, how many A+ teams battled with each other? I saw Wake Forrest, Georgetown and Rutgers all have multiple battles with other A+ teams then you have teams like Kentucky and UNC who at least battled one other A+ school. The only A+ school that I can say with certainty that didn't battle another A+ is Duke, I"m not sure about UCONN and BC.

These type of battles are great for the game, if your system gets put into place then these battles happen far less frequently simply because why battle an A+ school when you can just sign a slightly weaker player for much cheaper? And now instead of just signing 1 stud you sign 2 or 2 instead of 3. So since the A+ schools are spending more money battling it out for the very best players it allows the next tier of schools to either beatout A+ schools for a stud simply because they've pumped a bunch of money into another recruit battling another A+ (I grabbed a 5* center from UK and Wake, Wake for this reason and UK because I had much more money) or the next tier gets to sign a better player than they normally do for cheap solely due to A+ schools battling out for the studs and not having enough money to battle an A- or B+ school for a very good player. Then there is just a trickle down where now the B and B- schools can get better guys. I feel just making the studs weaker and the good to very good players better creates a system where recruiting is very boring and gameplanning isn't as fun because everybody has similar players.

Over the last 13 seasons (46-58) in D1 Tark there have been 12 different schools to win a title only Rutgers has won 2, North Texas is the only non BCS school but BYU went to the title game 3 times and Central Florida once. So we've had 5 non BCS schools reach the title game in that span, not a ton but still a decent number for the time period. Seasons 33-45 saw 3 different teams win at least 2 titles with Texas A&M winning 3, seasons 20-32 saw 2 teams win at least 2. So it's not like the current recruit generation is allowing the top teams to be anymore dominant than in the past.

+1 but in paragraph one i say dissent

7/17/2011 8:43 PM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1110 1

Prospect

mason - you are missing the point, of course you could do that - easy - no sweat - the point is - it got harder than it was - it still is easy for you, but not as easy as it was - but simply statistically over the entire population of coaches, the top teams are winning more, getting ranked higher, going farther in the dance - it isn't even debateable - we all know it - only ? is - did mass hysteria cause it as you suggested and I have been resolute in my refutation of or did the change to the game cause the change in winning as I maintain

so you switched the point in your last post to the health care system, to what beer we order, buy cars, then a testament to your vast skills as a coach - I have no arguement with any of that

my point - when recruiting was changed, it increased the success rate of the top teams - plain and simple

7/17/2011 8:50 PM

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.

Show

psuarva

Posts: 65 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 19

Prospect

I think the problem is too few coaches and not the engine change. With lots of coaches in D1 I think this recruit generation system would work really well. Naturally coaches gravitate to the BCS jobs when they win at lower levels, just like real life, because they think they can make it to a final 4 with more talent. If the mid majors and low majors were full of human coaches we'd see more of them advancing deep into the tournament each year. I look at Phelan where A-10, Conf USA and Horizon have 7 total human coaches out of 36 schools. All you have to do in those conferences is come in and collect some quarter decent recruits and you're off to the races. Then you get to the NT and you're bounced in round 1 because your team really isn't that good. In the same world, the MWC has 10 human coaches and sends multiple teams to the NT every year, always with somebody advancing. Within a few years that conference will be a BCS level conference and probably have a few teams competing for national titles. All it took was a few human coaches. I don't see what the problem is, except too few people in the game.

7/17/2011 10:44 PM

kmasonbx

Posts: 847 (0)

Hall of Famer

210

Prospect

OR I actually think our view points aren't that different. Honestly I haven't seen much of the A+ teams getting a bunch of studs. I've seen it once and that was with Duke a 3 seasons ago in Tark where the stars lined up and emy signed 4 5* guys. The west coast schools get this sometimes but I think that will always happens simply because of how spread out things are out there and how few top notch program there are.

I agree that if it's a common theme that A+ schools are signing multiple top 10 guys every season then there is a problem with how much better the top recruits are. The way things went this past season in Tark is a system I'm 100% in favor of, the big boys battling it out for the studs which open it up for other schools to get the very good guys that can be stars on the right team but if the big boys didn't have to battle for studs would be role players for them.

7/18/2011 12:01 AM

sublightd

Posts: 220 (0)

Hall of Famer

315 2

Prospect

D1 Tark is a bit different animal in regards to the Mountain West. There's really only one conference out that way: PAC-10. Near half the PAC-10 schools have been empty for many seasons. I don't mean to diminish what Chief has done at BYU, because he's been awesome there. But its a lot easier when half of one of the power conferences is empty and not raiding your recruiting area.

I don't keep hard core stats like others, but I can say that I'm fairly positive the last 3-4 teams to win it all in Tark were 800+ rated. Some of those teams had 3-4 freshman on them or walkons. I lost in the second round to a Rutgers team I looked at and decided not to bother game planning for. And I had a 750 rated squad and felt I had no shot to win. Really, 800+ is the standard at least in Tark to win it.

The current top 5 in Tark is

814 (UCLA, lowest rated player 699)
786 (Texas AM)
719 (Rutgers, defending national champ, 2 walkons)
784 (Kansas - one senior)
790 (Stanford)

Somewhere like BYU where its too far west for 5 of the big 6 conferences to mess with you, and half the Pac-10 new or rebuilding, has a shot. Otherwise, its an extremely painful climb for someone on the east coast where 15k+ is rolling at you from a power conference, plus prestige.

7/18/2011 12:10 AM

mmt0315

Posts: 450 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 323 4 7

Prospect

Posted by kmasonbx on 7/17/2011 11:00:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's actually recruit generation that has caused this. I think it's people who play the game being stuck in their ways and because they thought recruit generation sucks when you're not in a BCS conference so the lower levels of D1 are very empty. It's even hard to get people to take over the weaker BCS schools because of the perceived disadvantages.

If you put the best coaches in a mid major conference where they were the only human coach do you think they would still have success? Of course they would. What ACN posted I've seen the occasional post talking about how great a D1 conference is ever since I started playing this game so it's nothing new. I do admit it happens more often these days but I think it's more of a perception thing then an actual fault in recruit generation.

In Tark the ACC and Big East have dominated for a long time and the Pac 10 and Big 12 have always been very solid conferences but now the Big Ten and SEC are also beginning to be threats, showing that the stranglehold can be broken. The biggest test of this is the SEC in Phelan, last season the conference earned a total of 60k postseason money and I've been there for I think 8 seasons and we've never even gotten 15k per team in my time. Problem is the Big 12 and the ACC are the 2 best conferences and it makes it tough for the SEC schools to breakthrough. It's to the point where LSU has been empty for 5 seasons simply because the conference isn't good and LSU has turned to crap and it's a very tough rebuild now.

I agree 100%, the reason the Big 6 are so dominant, are they are filled, and remain filled and not only are they filled, but with the top coaches...There are few if any midmajors that are full of human coaches and even the ones that have 5-6 coaches, those coaches generally leave...Recruiting is really not the issue, the issue is how many Sims coach midmajors.

7/18/2011 8:54 AM

mmt0315

Posts: 450 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 323 4 7

Prospect

Posted by oldresorter on 7/17/2011 2:54:00 PM (view original):
there is no doubt you can win from the mids - the issue is you have less a chance in the mid's because you can no longer get your hands on the type of recruit required to win it all - this is not under debate, the entire purpose of the change was to LESSEN the number of top recruits. As far as the top teams winning more or not, isn't that the premise this thread is built on - that indeed they are (my last 2 conferences, world 2 big east got 8 teams into the sweet 16, world 9 texas;s conf got 9 into the dance, just to add to the list), I did not think that was even under discussion - you have difficulty keeping on one issue KM.

Again, to keep you on topic, either mass hysteria changed the game last june (your words not mine) or the change changed the game, I vote the change did it.

OR --- Your point about the ability to land top recruits goes exactly in hand with Kmason's line of thinking --- the reason those recruits cannot be signed at midmajors is because of the lack of recruiting dollars those conferences have and that is a direct correlation to the number of humans in those conferences. In Phelan, the MWC has slowly filled with human coaches who are now all willing to stay put, just this past season, we were the 6th or 7th rated conference in RPI and had one team in the Sweat 16 and another make the second round. As the pretiges of these schools go up so does the talent they sign. It takes time to build up these schools and very few have the patience to see it through and will typically jump to Big 6 conference given the chance. Ive been at BYU for what will now be my 8th season. when I took over the school had a D prestige and hadnt made the postseason in 5 seasons. Were now up to a C+ and with an NT appearance this season should become a B or B+. Utah is up to a B+, Wyoming a B, etc...The progress of the entire conference would be even faster if the overall group of coaches was more experienced...you see major scheduling flaws, gameplanning mistakes etc which sorta slows the progress as well. The point is recruiting is not the issue with this game at all, its entirely based on the # of humans in these lower conferences.

7/18/2011 9:04 AM

Forums

Superconferences Topic

Search Criteria